A suit for permanent injunction requires valid title; without adherence to statutory requirements for land transactions, such claims are unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (FTC), Balasore in Munsif Appeal No.3 of 1989-I.

By the said judgment and decree, the Appeal filed by the present Respondent No.3 (Defendant No.3) under section 96 of the Code has been allowed and thereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Balasore in O.S. No. 28 of 1985-I decreeing the suit of the present Appellant (Plaintiff) for permanent injunction have been annulled.

The present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the suit before the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff’s case:-

The Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction simplicitor. It is his case that the land which is the subject matter of the suit originally belonged to the Defendant No.1 and he sold the said land to one Nityananda Das by registered sale deed dated 8.9.72. On 22.7.84 said Nityananda again sold the land in suit to one Ayub Khan who had been delivered with the possession of the purchased land. Said Ayub Khan while in possession of the suit land as its owner which he had acquired under registered sale deed dated 22.7.84 sold the same to the Plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 16.3.81. The Plaintiff claims to have been in possession of the suit land since the time of his purchase. Pursuant to the said purchase, the Plaintiff has got the land recorded in his name by an order passed in Mutation Case No. 1762 of 1992 and has been paying the land revenue to the State. It is alleged that prior to the suit, the Defendants with the help of some persons in enimical terms with the Plaintiff created disturbance over his peaceful possession over the land. So the suit has come to be filed by the Plaintiff seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from interfering in his possession in respect of the suit land.

4. The Defendant No. 3 alone contested the suit. In his written statement, he states that the Defendant No. 1 having agreed to sale the said land to him had received part consideration amount and had executed an unregistered agreement for sale. Pursuant to the said agreement, the Defendant No. 1 had delivered the possession of the suit land to him and accordingly, he has been in possession of the suit land. The Defendant No. 1 being fully aware of the agreement and he having already parted with the possession of the suit land which was also known to the Defendant No. 2 as well as Nityananda, in order to harass, this Defendant No.3 with the help of Nityananda and Ayub Khan, the sale deeds have been created and the suit has been filed to oust the Defendant No.3 of which he is in lawful possession the suit land. It is his case that by virtue of the said unregistered sale deed, he has taken over the possession of the suit land being so delivered by Defendant No.1 and thus he has acquired the possessory right over the same. Besides saying all these, the Defendant No. 3 has also challenged the maintainability of the suit in the form as has been laid and for the relief claimed. It is stated that he being in lawful possession of the suit land, the simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court having framed six issues has answered all those in favour of the